SCOTT R. LASSAR United States Attorney JOAN LASER Assistant United States Attorney BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division JOHN L. WODATCH, Chief L. IRENE BOWEN, Deputy Chief EDWARD MILLER PHYLLIS COHEN Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section Post Office Box 66738 Washington, D.C. 20035-6738 (202) 514-3422 Attorneys For Plaintiff United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 99 C 1794 ) VASQUEZ FUNERAL HOME, ) Judge Gettleman ) Defendant. ) PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES’ POST TRIAL BRIEF Table of Contents Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 II. The Evidence at Trial Demonstrates That the United States Has Proven its Factual Allegations and That the Defendant’s Story Is Simply Not Credible..................................4 A. The United States’ Witnesses Are More Credible than Mr. Vasquez and Their Testimony and the Weight of the Evidence Demonstrates That Mr. Vasquez Committed Illegal Discrimination .................................4 B. Vasquez’s Testimony Is Inconsistent With Prior Statements and Internally Inconsistent..................................................................................9 C. Vasquez’s Eleventh-hour Explanation Is Pretextual and an After-the-Fact Rationalization ...................................................................12 D. Even If The Court Believes Vasquez’s Story That The $100 Was For a Different Service, it Is Clear That Vasquez Demanded Payment of The $100 Because He Learned That Mr. Medina Died of AIDS.........................................................................13 E. Defendant’s Exhibits Do Not Support His Story and Should Be Given Little Weight ...................................................................................14 III. The Vasquez Funeral Home Committed Illegal Discrimination Against Elva Medina and Sandra Medina Because They Associated with a Person with a Disability.....................................................................................................16 A. The Vasquez Funeral Home Is a Public Accommodation under the ADA...........................................................................................17 B. The Vasquez Funeral Home Discriminated Against the Medinas Because of Their Association with a Person with a Known Disability....................................................................................................18 IV. The Vasquez Funeral Home Committed Illegal Discrimination Against Mr. Pompello Medina in Violation of the ADA.......................................................................23 A. The Vasquez Funeral Home Is a Public Accommodation under the ADA.....................................................................................................23 -i- B. At All Times Relevant to The Complaint, Pompello Medina Was a Person With a Disability as Defined by The ADA .....................................23 C. The Vasquez Funeral Home Discriminated Against Mr. Medina in Violation of the ADA.................................................................................28 V. Damages and Penalties ......................................................................................................29 -ii- Table of Authorities Cases Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) ........................................................9, 10 Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)........................................................................... 18, 21-28 Cain v. Hyatt, 734 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Pa. 1990)...........................................................................30 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ............21 Cloutier v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 964 F.Supp. 299 (N.D. Cal. 1997)............................16 D.B. v. Bloom, 896 F. Supp. 166 (D.N.J. 1995)............................................................................29 Doe v. D.C., 796 F. Supp. 559 (D.D.C. 1992)...............................................................................30 Emmel v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Chicago, 95 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 1996) .............3, 11, 13 Howe v. Hull, 873 F. Supp. 72 (N.D. Ohio 1994).........................................................................30 In re Chavin, 150 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................9, 10 Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997)........................21 Johanson v. Huizenga Holdings, Inc., 963 F.Supp. 1175 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ...................................17 Kotev v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 927 F.Supp. 1316 (C.D. Cal. 1996) .....................................16 Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Gary, 49 F.3d 286 (7th Cir. 1995)........................13 Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1003 (1998) ................................................................................................21 Perfetti v. First National Bank of Chicago, 950 F.2d 449 (7th Cir. 1991) .....................................13 Riemer v. Illinois Dept. of Transp., 148 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 1998)................................................27 School Bd. of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 279 (1987)......................................27 Special Educ. Services v. RREEF Performance Partnership-I,L.P., No. 95 C 6468, 1995 WL 745964 (N.D. Ill. Dec 11, 1995) ....................................................................................................17 -iii- United States v. Gregory, 871 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1020 (1990).......................................................................................................3, 9, 10, 30 United States v. Lashmett, 965 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1992) ...............................................................10 United States v. Scott, 660 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 907 (1982) ............13 United States v. Watson, 87 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 1996)....................................................................10 Statutes and Regulations Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189................................... passim 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.............................................................................................................22, 24, 25 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a).....................................................................................................................28 28 C.F.R. § 36, App. B, at 598 (1994)....................................................................................20, n.7 Other Authorities 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc.: Civil 2d § 2586 (1995) ......................................10 Americans With Disabilities Act, Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Subcommittee On the Handicapped 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (May 9, 1989) ....19 Fed.R. Evid. 613. ...........................................................................................................................10 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 615 (1990). .............................................................26 -iv- I. Introduction The United States alleges that the Vasquez Funeral Home discriminated against Mr. Pompello Medina and the Medina family in violation of title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, by charging an additional fee for conducting funeral services for Mr. Pompello Medina, a person who died of AIDS, that was not charged to persons without disabilities. Trial of these allegations was held on December 30, 1999. Many of the essential facts of this case are not disputed, including the following: on October 1, 1995, Mr. Medina died of complications from AIDS. See Final Pretrial Order, Appendix A. The next day the Medina family contacted the Vasquez Funeral Home and received a written quote for funeral services. Id. At the time he prepared this quote, Mr. Raymond Vasquez, the owner and sole employee of the Vasquez Funeral Home, did not know the cause of death of Mr. Medina. Id. After learning of the cause of death, Mr. Vasquez prepared a final, written contract that was $100 more than the original quote and specifically listed an “AIDS kit” as an itemized charge. Id. While these facts are undisputed, several central facts remain contested, leaving the Court with two vastly different and virtually unreconcilable stories. To resolve this dichotomy, the Court will be required to make credibility determinations as to which witnesses are believable and which are not; which witnesses have motives to misstate the facts; which witnesses have misrepresented facts in the past; and, finally, which story is more internally consistent and credible. The first story was told by Sandra Medina Izaguirre, daughter of Mr. Pompello Medina, -1- and Elva Medina, Mr. Medina’s wife of 20 years (“the Medinas”). FF 5-6.1 Both witnesses confirmed that on the day Mr. Medina died, Sandra Medina Izaguirre telephoned Mr. Vasquez, told him that the Medina family